Originally posted by Slartifartblast
View Post
Ubuntu 15.10: KVM vs. Xen vs. VirtualBox Virtualization Performance
Collapse
X
-
According to the VirtualBox manual it says
"You should not, however, configure virtual machines to use more CPU cores than you have available physically (real cores, no hyperthreads)".
In your tests you wrote
"all 20 CPU threads (ten core CPU + HT) were made available to the virtual machine under test."
Maybe setting the number of cores in VirtualBox to the number of hyper-threads is having an adverse effect on VirtualBox?
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Postwell you got two things right there. Hyper-V and Windows both suck on server platforms. I havent tried out Linux on Hyper-V lately but i did hear about microsoft was contributing code to linux kernel for better supporting GNU/linux on hyper-v/azure..
But yeah, they have contributed code for hyper-v drivers. Yes, sometimes hell can freeze over and Microsoft can commit to Linux, on GPL terms. And while they only did it after GPL violation pressure and only because it makes their hyper-v more competitive, its still some very unusual and unexpected show, almost like seeing alive dinosaur on the street.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostWhatever, but I do not come to phoronix to read microsoft marketing bullshit. Since it does not runs on Linux (or at least something *nix-like) and proprietary/vendor locked, it would be better to be benchmarked somewhere else I guess. After all, it runs on windows only. And windows as server is a nightmare.
well you got two things right there. Hyper-V and Windows both suck on server platforms. I havent tried out Linux on Hyper-V lately but i did hear about microsoft was contributing code to linux kernel for better supporting GNU/linux on hyper-v/azure.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by sarfarazahmad View Postwell if esxi is here then shouldn't hyper-V be tested too.
Leave a comment:
-
-
well if esxi is here then shouldn't hyper-V be tested too. on a personal experience note, I am witnessing organisations moving away from Hyper-V. KVM clubbed with easy provisioning and configuration mgmt with tools like Foreman are the real cost-saving deals. Yay ! for linux adoption
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by reCAPTCHA View Post
Much more interesting IMO is VMware vSphere Hypervisor, which is free for unlimited number of CPU up to 32 GB of RAM per CPU, though I am not sure about the benchmarking issue. IIRC they don't allow result publishing, so no point than in running it except for personal use...
Another thing is, this is totally different beast compared to Workstation. No graphical interface, and to manage it, one needs Windows vSphere Client application.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Michael View Post
I don't have a VMware Workstation license, which is why it wasn't tested.
Another thing is, this is totally different beast compared to Workstation. No graphical interface, and to manage it, one needs Windows vSphere Client application.Last edited by reCAPTCHA; 23 October 2015, 04:26 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by darrent View PostMichael
What I would find more useful is how well each of the VM platforms "scales out" as more VM's are added - as that is more like how I'm using the virtualisation platforms.
e.g. what is the "average performance" of 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, up to ...{N)x VM's ( e.g. a 4GB RAM, dual CPU VM, sharing and contending for access to the host resources).
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: